"A self-styled form of Darwinian fundamentalism has risen to some prominence in a variety of fields, from the English biological heartland of John Maynard Smith to the uncompromising ideology (albeit in graceful prose) of his compatriot Richard Dawkins, to the equally narrow and more ponderous writing of the American philosopher Daniel Dennett . . . . - Stephen Jay Gould, "Darwinian Fundamentalism," The New York Review of Books.

Monday, October 10, 2005

Barbara Forrest, the ACLU and Calvin and Hobbes

Krauze posted this cartoon, in response to this post by Mike Gene, which discusses, among other things, ACLU fund-raising tactics. The cited ACLU fund-raising letter can be found here. One of the comments discusses Barbara Forrest and her obsessive conspiracy theories. Another post explaining aspects of her conspiracy theories is here.

Isn't there anyone over there at the ACLU who is saying, "Hey, everyone, what ever happened to our original mission of protecting free speech- even for unpopular causes?" Or, "Why are we spending all these resources in the Kitzmiller case to stop a 15 second invitation to students to do further voluntary reading outside of class?"

4 Comments:

A macroevolution agnostic? Built on 'a priori philosophical claims'? What pretentious nonsense, get your nose out of philosophy books and look at the facts for one second. Evolution is a proven scientific theory which makes predictions. Darwin predicted that the first human-similar forms would be traced back to Africa. They were. Evolution predicted that viruses would evolve to become resistant to current antibiotics. They did. Evolution is established fact: the abundance of evidence in its favour is absolutely overwhelming and unquestionable. There is no alternative scientific theory to explain biological complexity: God of the Gaps is not an alternative theory. And before you say 'But evolution is just a theory!' CREATIONISM IS A THEORY. Evolution is a better theory which has been proven as empirical fact, so come on in into the 21st century, you'll like it. Stating that you used to accept evolution and now you don't does not strengthen your anti-evolution position in any way, really need to explain this to people..

Your ignorance is not worth replying to, because it is apparent you are being very selective with your facts. For example, take a look at what Darwin predicted we would find in the fossil beds just before the Cambrian Era. Sounds like you are a product of the selective information provided by the public schools. It saddens me, quite frankly.

About Me

I am a macroevolution agnostic. I used to accept evolutionary theory. Then I looked at the evidence.
It became clear to me that macroevolutionary theory is built more on a priori philosophical assumptions than on evidence. Microevolution, on the other hand, is supported by the evidence. The distinction between the two is critical and is largely ignored, or not understood, by the mainstream media and general public.